Global Warming?

[RobertBrown]

Most likely the ones being "cooked" that you rely on so much...or possibly your hand book

OOPS! wrong again!

 

[Cat_Driver]

Why didn't the Government just tale the money they gave to Greenie Gov. donors who in turn gave it back in donation just buy everyone a Chev ,VOLT?

OH wait because they no longer are making the VOLT. Sorry, that's another green failure by the greenies.

They could give everyone batteries... OH WAIT that's another Government failure

A123's Failure and the History of Government in the Auto Industry - Driver's Seat - WSJ

FOLLOW THE MONEY

$849 million – has gone to foreign wind companies. Spanish utility company
Overseas firms collecting most green energy money - Blown Away: Tracking stimulus grants for renewable energy | Investigative Reporting Workshop

 

[IslandTractor]

What no Libbies crying about how much money was wasted on "green scams" WHAT no protesting, WHAT no "occupy " cry babies holding up signs NAHHHHHHH, NOW when Corporations WASTE MONEY ya that different isn't it.

See this is why LIBERALS HAVE NO CREDIBILITY

The Complete List of Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

Cat my ditto headed friend, you could at least quote the entire article if you are going to post pieces. You left out the following sentence: " Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain". Now this is a biased piece to begin with so probably a fair number of those companies will in fact survive but certainly some are well publicized failures.

OK, 10% of the money invested is to companies in trouble and a few have crashed. Is that unexpected in development of new technology? what about with a private venture capital scenario? I'd imagine 10% failure rate would be remarkably low. Mitt Romney had a much higher failure rate with Bain investments and those investments were much easier than developing new technology. NASA had much higher failure rate when developing rockets. The military has WAY bigger failure rates with development of new weapons systems.

It is easy to throw numbers around but any thoughtful person will try to put such figures into perspective. There will obviously be some failures with any new technology so, put in perspective , what's the big deal?

 

[Gator6x4]

Remember the Middle East quagmire an individual got the US mired in before fleeing to Texas and taking up water coloring? Well every time you stop at a gas pump you pay dearly. Green Energy is cheap besides what we are paying for fossil fuel.

The Math

If you take half the U.S. defense budget ($354 billion) and add it to our annual spending on oil per se (again, that was $632 billion), Americans' true "cost of oil" rises to $986 billion. Apply this 56% markup to today's gas prices, and between the price you pay at the pump and the money you pay the IRS to help ensure the gas gets to your pump in the first place, you're really paying a combined $5.93 a gallon.

But again, this is on oil as a whole. Since defense spending really only goes to protect imported oil, the cost of each incremental gallon on "imported" gasoline is costing you north of $8 a gallon.

This isn't the price you see up on the ExxonMobil signboard, true. But it's in every gallon you pour in your tank.

 

[TCJatko]

Let's face it: the AGW scam is the new religion of the left, adhered to despite overwhelming evidence it's all a fabrication. No amount of logic will sway them. Best to simply defeat them politically and listen to the howling. Liberals are quite amusing when they are not in power.

 

[IslandTractor]

Let's face it: the AGW scam is the new religion of the left, adhered to despite overwhelming evidence it's all a fabrication. No amount of logic will sway them. Best to simply defeat them politically and listen to the howling. Liberals are quite amusing when they are not in power.

Now that is a well documented and logically argued post. Who needs data and why bother to respond to references in other posts when your mind is calcified. It is also interesting that TC considers Mitt to be a liberal. Must show that the Etch a Sketch strategy is working.

 

[Gator6x4]

What I find very amusing is the FACT that conservatives used to champion environmental protection and have now because of a political belief turned to one of destroy the environment.

 

[EE_Bota]

While I agree that any efforts to mitigate AGW need to consider economic impact and I appreciate the geopolitical benefits of domestic sourcing of fuel needs, I don't see the connection. What does it matter for the deficit if we pay money to multinational energy corporations in either case? Perhaps the Feds get a piece of the domestic action but I would think the impact of using less fuel more efficiently would trump any impact of where that fuel comes from. Doubling MPG standards for all vehicles would have more beneficial effect on national debt (or at least personal finance) than doubling domestic oil production. Wouldn't it? Spend half as much on fuel equals more money for other investments. Leaving more oil in the ground for another generation protects an asset that can only be more valuable to future Americans. Decreasing barrels of oil combusted would pretty clearly help mitigate AGW based on current best science too while increasing production would do the opposite. There is a balance to be struck between current and future needs but I don't see how simply increasing production helps.

My comments were a divergence from the exact discussion, but also a combination of many aspects. You had written previously that Romney is not an ideologue, and will work in a manner that will disappoint AGW skeptics. I alluded to his plans to greatly escalate recovery of our own resources, and that will not disappoint skeptics, but instead will cheer them. And it presents a slight challenge to your predictions of Romney's AGW actions were he to be elected.

If he does both increased exploration and utilization of our energy resources while placating the AGW groups, and it pans out well for energy security and the economy that would be a brilliant political move. But that is pie in the sky, and I doubt he can achieve anything close to that outcome, with placation of the environmentalists being the least likely. Many environmentalists seem implacable and unreasonable to me. There are some quite reasonable and very well informed, but they don't get as much exposure.

My additional comments weave in the national debt because it is a matter of fact, and unlike AGW where a person my be hotter one day and colder the next, the national debt is ticking upward inexorably for all observers at all times. It will take a strong and wealthy nation whose currency is not threatened with collapse to adjust to AGW gracefully, so I would expect AGW advocates to be extremely sensitive to loss of the means to even attempt a fight of AGW. But to the contrary, on the national stage, it seems many attempt to use the fight of AGW to weaken the nation even more, though I continue to try to convince myself that is not their goal by telling myself they are "dumb" (a sort of forbearance I offer them against the prospect of far harsher judgements.) Maybe they think their job is to fight AGW, and handling all other issues is the problem of someone else. Well they are against me in that regard because I consider the national debt my primary concern, and I will have to oppose a great many of their actions.

 

[houstonscott]

There is no green energy production it's a foot note. Besides what does green mean. Oil is green too, natural and unlimited supply, not like wind and solar where you have to wait for your power. Oh, I like my hawks and eagles too much for those technologies that don't work to be pushed. It's gas and oil for north America for me, and will be for the next 2000 years.

HS

 

[EE_Bota]

Here is one conservative talk show host denier who has changed his tune: http://www.frumforum.com/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert/

Yet you still call him a denier. So I take it he thinks the Holocaust didn't happen then?

 

[EE_Bota]

I get it.......
Now I get it.
It just occurred to me.
This is why you use your ignore list.

It was deliberately caustic, but his point is a good one. It is exceedingly harmful to the green subsidies that many were awarded the the President's bundlers. If he had turned back the green bundles and made the awards without them it would have been a help. Failures of some of those businesses would still hurt, but at least it wouldn't look crooked.

 

[EE_Bota]

What I find very amusing is the FACT that conservatives used to champion environmental protection and have now because of a political belief turned to one of destroy the environment.

I am a conservative, and I still champion environmental protection, and I have appreciated many of the improvements made over the decades. Now I am skeptical over the EPA because they give grants to people to sue them, cave, and then repay for the legal expenses so that they can do what they want to do rather than what the congress has empowered them to do. Now, I wonder if they can be fixed short of being dissolved. Nixon meant well when he stated the agency, and for many years, they did good things, but not so much anymore, and I no longer trust them. Perhaps they can regain my trust.

The Math

The EPA's budget goes to clean up foreign pollution. If the foreign pollution is X tons and the cost of cleaning up that pollution is Y Euros per ton, then X *Y in dollar equivalent equals their budget. See how they are screwing us. I vote we take their entire budget and spend it on the defense of foreign oil.

I just did that because I read your earlier posts, so I thought it was a holiday where we just say silly, laughable things without any visible support, and call it "The Math." If I misunderstood your gambit, please correct me. Bonus if you call it "The Logic."

 

[IslandTractor]

My comments were a divergence from the exact discussion, but also a combination of many aspects. You had written previously that Romney is not an ideologue, and will work in a manner that will disappoint AGW skeptics. I alluded to his plans to greatly escalate recovery of our own resources, and that will not disappoint skeptics, but instead will cheer them. And it presents a slight challenge to your predictions of Romney's AGW actions were he to be elected.

If he does both increased exploration and utilization of our energy resources while placating the AGW groups, and it pans out well for energy security and the economy that would be a brilliant political move. But that is pie in the sky, and I doubt he can achieve anything close to that outcome, with placation of the environmentalists being the least likely. Many environmentalists seem implacable and unreasonable to me. There are some quite reasonable and very well informed, but they don't get as much exposure.

My additional comments weave in the national debt because it is a matter of fact, and unlike AGW where a person my be hotter one day and colder the next, the national debt is ticking upward inexorably for all observers at all times. It will take a strong and wealthy nation whose currency is not threatened with collapse to adjust to AGW gracefully, so I would expect AGW advocates to be extremely sensitive to loss of the means to even attempt a fight of AGW. But to the contrary, on the national stage, it seems many attempt to use the fight of AGW to weaken the nation even more, though I continue to try to convince myself that is not their goal by telling myself they are "dumb" (a sort of forbearance I offer them against the prospect of far harsher judgements.) Maybe they think their job is to fight AGW, and handling all other issues is the problem of someone else. Well they are against me in that regard because I consider the national debt my primary concern, and I will have to oppose a great many of their actions.

That clarifies your earlier post. We don't disagree by much. Debt is a critical issue that is a bit more concrete and in our face than AGW which cannot be put into convenient pie charts. Both are threats to the national economy and well being though so I don't see them as either/or issues any more than military and healthcare or education. We need to get all these things under control with simultaneous rather than sequential strategies.

I don't see the sorts of things that need doing to control AGW at this stage to be antithetical to reducing national debt. Changing MPG standards on cars and reducing fossil fuel consumption is nowhere near as important a factor on national debt as balancing a budget and either growing out of the debt or paying it down more aggressively with some combo of cuts and hikes. We would be best off with less money flowing overseas for oil but could do that with both increased production of oil and renewables and conservation. The conservation and renewables options each kill two birds with one stone. Increased oil production just gets one.

 

[IslandTractor]

Yet you still call him a denier. So I take it he thinks the Holocaust didn't happen then?

I stand corrected and should have called him a former denier.

Interesting that none of the screamers here have sought to comment on the conversion or critiqued his rationale for changing his mind.

 

[/pine]

I stand corrected and should have called him a former denier.

Interesting that none of the screamers here have sought to comment on the conversion or critiqued his rationale for changing his mind.

:laughing:...."screamers"... as opposed to condescending, blathering, know it all AGW clowns?

This person you cite has far less credibility than lets say novelists etc. with science backgrounds and have conducted hundreds of hours of research to background their missives...

One goof "changes his toon [sic]" is now treated as a messiah by the misguided, blathering fools grasping at straws...!

As previously stated, I think it is stupid to argue any point of the climate change issue in a forum of this nature other than the realizations that the members actually experience themselves...Any personal opinions based on scientific data is moot...i.e., you can't prove anything...period!...

and BTW... IF misquoting and taking verbiage out of context to make a biased, condescending response is your M.O. then keep up the good work...BUT...you should learn the difference between things...like when someone says there is 'way too little boda fide data' and (which you changed to) "no boda fide data"...otherwise people will think you are more intent on the persecution of those you misquote and anyone you disagree with...

 

[toppop52]

Here's the deal, a kw/h cost 77c with current energy from oil/coal, etc... a kw/h of green energy costs $775 approx.

 

[IslandTractor]

:laughing:...."screamers"... as opposed to condescending, blathering, know it all AGW clowns?

This person you cite has far less credibility than lets say novelists etc. with science backgrounds and have conducted hundreds of hours of research to background their missives...

One goof "changes his toon [sic]" is now treated as a messiah by the misguided, blathering fools grasping at straws...!

As previously stated, I think it is stupid to argue any point of the climate change issue in a forum of this nature other than the realizations that the members actually experience themselves...Any personal opinions based on scientific data is moot...i.e., you can't prove anything...period!...

and BTW... IF misquoting and taking verbiage out of context to make a biased, condescending response is your M.O. then keep up the good work...BUT...you should learn the difference between things...like when someone says there is 'way too little boda fide data' and (which you changed to) "no boda fide data"...otherwise people will think you are more intent on the persecution of those you misquote and anyone you disagree with...

I'm confused by your statement: "I think it is stupid to argue any point of the climate change issue in a forum of this nature other than the realizations that the members actually experience themselves...Any personal opinions based on scientific data is moot...i.e., you can't prove anything...period!... "

Are you saying that it is hopeless to bring science into the discussion here or that you don't trust any science? Certainly the way this thread started a few years ago was a completely unscientific comparison of personal experiences with current weather. However I rather doubt you are seriously saying that is the only valid point as I know you are interested enough in science to see the fallacy in such anecdotal discussions. If you, like I, reject personal experiences with weather as relevant to the AGW debate, then how can you say opinions based on scientific data is moot. What am I not understanding? Are you really dismissing all current climate science as biased? If so, what science do you accept? Was your Feynman quote evidence that you are a nihilist?

The data reviewed by the 4th IPCC in the link provided earlier and repeated below is to my thinking a fair executive summary of the available data up to 2007 and has the added benefit of being a consensus statement from dedicated climate scientists rather than the opinion of a journalist or someone with a political ax to grind. They also rate the evidence using fairly standard methods to give each "finding" a certainty rating based on how well documented the finding is. If this summary of the evidence is not a valid departure point for discussion then what is?


http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo.../ar4_syr.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13506666039961

I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the boda fide typo. I didn't see it until the next day and added the editorial comment at that point. I cannot call it a true typo as the d character is nowhere near the n key.

 

[Redneck in training]

There is no green energy production it's a foot note. Besides what does green mean. Oil is green too, natural and unlimited supply, not like wind and solar where you have to wait for your power. Oh, I like my hawks and eagles too much for those technologies that don't work to be pushed. It's gas and oil for north America for me, and will be for the next 2000 years.

HS

Keep dreaming.

 

[Egon]

Sounds like it's now economics?

Back when the Dutch started pumping water what kind of economics did they use?

 

[IslandTractor]

Sounds like it's now economics?

Back when the Dutch started pumping water what kind of economics did they use?

Interesting question. I don't know but suspect private land owners pumped their own. Anyone study this?